Brukhman v. Giuliani, 94 N.Y.2d 387 (1999)

The prevailing wage provision of the New York State Constitution does not apply to public assistance beneficiaries participating in a Work Experience Program (WEP) as a condition of receiving benefits.

Summary

This case addresses whether public assistance recipients participating in New York City’s Work Experience Program (WEP) are entitled to be paid at the prevailing wage rate for their work assignments. These recipients were required to participate in WEP as a condition of receiving public assistance benefits. The plaintiffs argued that the city’s calculation of required work hours, based on the federal minimum wage rather than the higher prevailing wage, violated the state constitution. The New York Court of Appeals held that the constitutional prevailing wage provision does not extend to these public assistance recipients, because they are not “employees” of “contractors or subcontractors” engaged in “public work” as those terms are understood in the constitution.

Facts

Plaintiffs were public assistance recipients in New York City required to participate in a Work Experience Program (WEP) to continue receiving benefits. They were assigned to various not-for-profit organizations and city agencies, performing tasks ranging from skilled labor to clerical work. The city calculated their required participation hours by dividing the amount of their benefits by the federal minimum wage. The plaintiffs argued this violated the state constitution because the prevailing wage rate was higher and should have been used to calculate required hours, resulting in fewer hours worked.

Procedural History

The Supreme Court granted class certification and a preliminary injunction in favor of the plaintiffs. The Appellate Division reversed, dismissing the complaint, finding no violation of the prevailing wage provision or equal protection. The Court of Appeals granted an appeal as of right.

Issue(s)

Whether the prevailing wage provision of the New York State Constitution (Article I, § 17) applies to public assistance beneficiaries required to participate in a Work Experience Program (WEP) as a condition of receiving monetary grants.

Holding

No, because the constitutional prevailing wage provision does not extend to these public assistance recipients as they are not considered “employees” of “contractors or subcontractors” engaged in “public work” within the meaning of the constitutional provision.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals reasoned that the state constitution’s prevailing wage provision protects laborers, workmen, or mechanics in the employ of a contractor or subcontractor engaged in public work. The court emphasized the limited scope of this protection based on the language and historical context of the constitutional provision. The court stated that the plaintiffs were not “in the employ of” anyone, nor were the agencies to which they were assigned “contractors or subcontractors.” Furthermore, the court determined that the work performed by the plaintiffs was not “public work” as contemplated by the constitution. The court reviewed the Record of the 1938 Constitutional Convention, noting that the prevailing wage protection was intended for “employees of contractors and subcontractors engaged in the performance of public work.” The court emphasized the importance of the term “employees” as deliberately chosen to limit the scope of the protection. The court cited Matter of Corrigan v. Joseph, 304 N.Y. 172 (1952), to support its narrow interpretation. The court stated that “Program participants simply are not ‘in the employ of’ anyone — that is the very reason they are receiving welfare benefits and required to participate in the Program.” The court further cited Varsity Tr. v Saporita, 71 A.D.2d 643 (2d Dept. 1979), aff’d, 48 N.Y.2d 767 (1979) which held “It is hornbook law that the Labor Law provision applies only to workers involved in the construction, replacement, maintenance and repair of ‘public works’ in a legally restricted sense of that term”. The court concluded that applying the prevailing wage requirement to WEP participants would broaden the scope of the constitutional provision beyond its intended limits. The Court explicitly stated, “That provision is New York’s proud enforcement of the value of work and the dignity of earned wages.”